Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Cheating this presidential election (2012) I expect this Presidential election; we can be looking at cheating like we have never seen before. I don’t know what the Republican Party can do, but I would hope that we can monitor better and more strictly. President Obama deliberately misled the American public with the video to direct attention away from the real enemy who murdered our Ambassador and committed the act of war that it represents. We are not talking about cheating on your wife. Republicans need both houses; we must repeal Obama care. The damage of not repealing even if left unfunded will be irreversible. Sooner or later, funding will expand, unless repealed. This is why I believe that we are going to see massive cheating. If successful, even if President Obama loses, the victory may not be enough to change the direction we are heading in, certainly not enough to turn it around. And this is all that they need. This is a major incentive for cheating. If we can be lied to about the murder of our Ambassador and an act of war, it is not unreasonable to believe that we can be lied to about who (Or how many) voted for who.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

We have fewer horses today

This is a classic case of seeing what you want to see. Obama: “You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” “It’s not a game of battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our capabilities?’” Actually, it is counting ships. Attrition determines who wins the big wars. Capabilities depend upon numbers to a large degree. Aircraft carriers need escorts. Aircraft carriers need to be rotated for service for prolonged periods of time. This requires additional numbers in order to maintain consistent capability. And this is without losses due to accidents and/or enemy action. I have seen and heard many people who believe that President Obama did well in this exchange. This shows me how limited President Obama’s thinking is concerning our military and its capabilities. In 1981, the US Navy had stated the idea that it was going to bring back the battleship. (Iowa class) I saw an “expert” declare that the battleship in 1981 is as obsolete as the horse was during World War II. President Obama’s comment above reminds me of this ‘expert’. What this ‘Expert’ did not know was that even at the end of the war, the German army was more than 60% horse driven. The German army was the toughest fighting force on earth. Have you seen pictures of the German army after a big defeat? Dead horses are everywhere. The supply units were almost all horse driven (Exception: the panzer supply units) How did the German 6th army hold out in Stalingrad for 2 and a half months in the middle of winter with the majority of the supply on the wrong side of the Don river? The men ate the horses. Horses may have been obsolete, but they were still VERY useful. The U.S. and England were the ONLY 100% mechanized armies in the entire world. President Obama does not understand this. The Soviet army inflicted far more losses on the German army than anyone else during World War II and they used horses extensively. President Obama’s comment may have worked on those who know little about horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but he does not know much at all about their capabilities or their practical use. God help us if a big war breaks out with this guy as our Commander-in-Chief.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

We are getting close

I am not referring to the election. We are getting close to the war blowing up. Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons. Iran does not need to deploy any that they obtain. Just the fact that they have them will allow Iran to escalate its war against us. Iran is already a major challenge to invade. Iran is a far different situation from invading Iraq. For many reasons, it is a much tougher nut to crack. Iran’s position is already fairly strong and look at the support it is giving to Islamic nationalist groups. When Iran gets the bomb, and any type of delivery system, just think about how much more they will be able to expand their operations. Iran will not need to use any nukes, just having them will escalate the war. And this leaves out the possibility that Iran WILL use them. Either way, the war is closer to blowing up. Now toss in our election. If President Obama wins re-election, it is possible that Israel will not be able to wait 4 or 5 more years for a different President. It would not surprise me if President Obama abandoned Israel like Neville Chamberlain did for Czechoslovakia back in 1938. If Israel suspects as I do, they will not be able to wait and would be pressed to begin the war on their own. I doubt they have the strength without the use of nuclear weapons themselves, and I also doubt that they would begin the war by using those they do have. I believe this unlikely, but more possible than if President Obama loses. After all, Israel could then wait for someone who is more likely to help them take office. I am leaving out a great deal, but overall; the world is much closer to a major regional war than we were just a few years ago. And I believe that we are pretty close right now. Within a couple of years is very possible. That is to close for me.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The debate

The Presidential debate last night was a classic case of seeing what you want to see. When the person I favor as President spoke, I liked what I heard. When the “Other guy” spoke, I did not. This is usually true in any case, but was different from the 1st debate because it had seemed that Governor Romney had appeared far more decisive than President Obama. This was not true this time around. Frankly, I expected a much more spirited debate this time around because President Obama had seemed so quiet and weak last time. As in the Vice Presidential debate, I expected more attacks from the President and I was not disappointed. He was on the defensive and needed to show more of a fighting spirit. He showed it last night. I will call the debate last night a draw in that I saw basically what I expected to see. What surprised me (And I really should not have been surprised over this)was in how much these two guys loath each other. I thought that they hid their dislike of each other fairly well, but it showed up to me in the number of times that each called the others statement(s) untrue. This was a constant theme for both President Obama and Governor Romney. So it all boils down to who and what you believe. This goes back to seeing what you want to see. The choice between the two cannot be much clearer. These two are about as opposite on the political scale as we can find today. One side wants to use the fundamental economics that this country was founded upon and the other believes that more government running of the economy is the answer. This election will demonstrate just how much our country has CHANGED.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

We did not start the war

I heard on the radio last night a woman who claimed she was an independent voter. She had voted for President Obama the last time but liked Romney EXCEPT she thought that he was willing to ‘start another war’ more easily than President Obama. She has a son 14 years old and is understandably worried. The major problem here is that she fundamentally misunderstands the situation. Let’s start by saying that my two sons are 14 and 13. Think I want them to have to go into battle and risk life and limb? The problem goes far beyond her and my families. Our public news agencies are not doing their jobs properly. I have read news reports from wars dating back to the American Revolution. The analysis is sometimes OK, but generally poor. In other words, the ‘press’ has never really understood the basics of warfare. Political analysis is first rate, but analysis of armed conflict is at about a 5th grade level. The United States did NOT start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. OH, we ‘invaded’ those countries all right. We ‘invaded’ France in 1944. Many people believe the ‘invasions’ to be very different and they are. But the invasions are not different in the context of ‘starting the war’. Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched from. Iraq had no direct involvement in 9/11 but is connected in that the war is far larger than both Iraq AND Afghanistan. When the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, we became ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. This is an ‘invasion’ of Islamic sovereignty. Go back further. In 1990, the United States was invited to send troops into Saudi Arabia to repel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. As soon as the first U.S. soldier set foot on Saudi soil, we became ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. This was one of the reasons why Osama Bin Laden ‘declared war’ on the United States. A religion that fields combat units and declares war is the cause of the war. Islamic sovereignty does not recognize the modern national government. The United States is not starting the war anymore than we did back in 1804 when Muslims demanded ‘Tribute’ for our ships passing through ‘Muslim waters’. Tribute is payment of a ‘poll tax’ by non-Muslims living in Islamic land. The payer is exempted from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. The Barbary pirates were stretching Islamic law to extend Islamic sovereignty but this is not new either. I saw a video of a young girl being stoned to death. The final act was a cinder block dropped on her head. This is a violation of Islamic law. The rocks are not to be as small as to qualify as a pebble, yet can’t be so large as to kill with one blow. The United States did not start any of this B.S. either. If my sons have to risk their lives to end this crap, then I will be very proud of them and our country. The world cannot have religion acting like a national government anymore. I had thought that this ended with the last crusade, but this is not the case concerning Islamic sovereignty.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

My country lied to me

It took me awhile to realize what happened. I assumed that when my government said that an attack upon the sovereignty of my country and our ambassador was killed, that I would at least get an honest appraisal of the situation. I expect honesty in view of the situation within human limits and error. I found out that the U.S. government, namely President Obama, knew from the beginning that this was an organized, timed terrorist attack. I went downstairs and drank too much. It was an immature response, but I still have difficulty believing it. I suppose it bothered me even more that I was suspicious about President Obama doing stuff like this, but I sure as hell HOPED it would never happen. I expect a certain amount of ‘fluff’ with all politicians. They have to express themselves in the least offensive way to attract the most voters. I also expect them to exaggerate. If someone is really passionate about something, it is a human fault. If you really believe in something, it is easier to ‘stretch the truth’. We see this in politicians all the time. And I expect them to really believe what they are saying. This is why I did not expect much new transparency from the Obama administration, despite what he was saying. When it comes to matters of national security and war, I have higher expectations. I have felt since I was a kid that killing people (Or not) was the most important function of our national government. No fooling around on these issues. I do not believe in much room for ‘stretching the truth’. Accurate information is hard enough to come by in these situations. When impeachment hearings were being held against President Clinton, I did not feel that he should have been removed from office. Doing so would have damaged the office of the President far more than just putting up with him another two or more years. However, it is one thing to lie about getting blowjobs or cheating on your wife. It is a far different matter when lying about a major national security event or acts of war. President Obama did it for his own political benefit. It would have looked really bad if terrorists had attacked us less than 2 months before the Presidential election. This looks particularly bad because it took place on the anniversary of 9/11. This is placing your own self interest before country. Maybe individuals can get away with it, but ANY elected official should at the least lose his job. If we re-elect President Obama, we are allowing him to get away with it. This damages the office of the President far more than if he were removed from office. If this attack has proved anything, it is that Islamic nationalists are still at war against us. The number one rule in warfare is to “know thy enemy”. The attack and our reaction also demonstrate that President Obama is voting ‘present’ in the war that our enemy is waging against us. This is one of the reasons why our enemies are gaining strength and effectiveness. This is one of the reasons why we are losing this war. And our President is lying about it to us. No wonder I got drunk. I am over the shock now. Now I am not just angry. We need to get rid of leaders who lie to us about those who want to kill us and wage EFFECTIVE war against them. No BULLSHIT. Killing people is no time for B.S. nor is it a time for lying, no matter what the personal consequences. Our President after almost 4 years does not understand this. He should have before he took office. No way in hell should he remain.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

The Middle East is becoming more unstable

Turkey has responded to a single mortar round with 2 days of artillery bombardments. The Turks are posturing for more direct involvement in the war that is being fought in Syria. Hezbollah is becoming more directly involved. (This is to be expected) Libya is moving more slowly toward an Islamic government than many of the other countries in the ‘Arab Spring’. Libya is appointing a number of Muslim Brotherhood ‘representatives’ to important political positions and numerous representatives of competing groups are being left out. This sounds familiar. Iran is suffering from hyperinflation and is seeing unrest today as a direct result. Hyperinflation is a desperate situation to be caught in. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. This is certainly not stability. I do want to point out that I am not crying about the government of Iran being placed into a difficult position. Now that the involvement of the U.S. in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing to a close, our enemies have far more resources to pit against their enemies throughout the region. And they are winning. One great weakness our enemies have is that they are so badly divided. This certainly seems to be changing although it is not apparent at first glance. What we could be seeing is a consolidation phase. The differences are being sorted out, violently. Then all it will take is some type of major spark. The video was an excellent excuse. It cannot be all that hard to find another. Sooner or later, one will occur that spins out of control. (Far worse than the video, although that was bad enough) The financial crisis will be a good start. The hyperinflation in Iran may not be directly connected, but the cause of the unrest in Iran is the same as that in Greece and Spain. It is economic, and people will fight over scarce resources more quickly than any other single reason that I can think of.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The "Rich" are not paying enough

So what is ‘Rich’? (Answer: Someone who has more than you.) The United States is a ‘Rich’ country. This means that we are not paying enough and we need to pay more? Who the hell has the right to take any action on this? Just because some leaders believe it to be true does not make it so. Besides, it all boils down to how you define ‘Rich’ and ‘enough’. What is ‘rich’ or ‘enough’ for you is not necessarily ‘rich’ or ‘enough’ for me. Same applies to ‘fair’. What is ‘fair’ to you may not be ‘fair’ to me. So the answer to the Rich not paying enough is to raise taxes only on ‘Them’. This is such a simple, ‘fair’ solution. Yet this is where the government takes away my house. I have lived in my current house for 14 years. My taxes already exceed the mortgage payment (Including insurance) by more than $100.00 a month. I have a house. To millions of other Americans who do not own a home, this makes me ‘Rich’. And I will only mention in passing about the rest of the world and how few of them own their home. The value of my house has dropped quite a bit over the past 5 or 6 years. Yet my taxes have been and are still going up. Unless my income keeps going up that much (Which it has not) then I am going to lose my house, sooner or later. I guess we just have too many ‘rich’ people in this country. Then we have the hidden tax. I am talking about inflation, or the dropping value of the currency. This impacts everyone, most of all the ‘poor’ and people on fixed income. This is because they can’t make additional money as fast as the value is dropping. This is the tax that hits all of us because we are a ‘rich’ country and need to pay our ‘fair’ share. It is only ‘fair’ that all of us ‘share’ this burden because we are not paying ‘enough’. And I thought that President Clinton was full of shit with how he defines ‘IS’.